The Value of Research

No parent would accept a medicine for their child that had not been through clinical trials. In education, however, children are often exposed to methods that have never been tested — or that research has already shown do not work. Childhood happens once. Every year spent on an ineffective approach is a year that does not come back.

What “research-based” really means

It does not mean “a study says”. It means theories and practices tested repeatedly, by independent research teams, in different countries and with different methods: experiments in real classrooms, cohort studies that follow children for decades, meta-analyses that synthesise hundreds of studies — all subject to the scrutiny of the scientific community. What counts is the convergence of findings.

Good research also tells us what it does not know: for whom a finding holds, under what conditions, with what limits. It does not offer recipes. It offers principles, which the teacher’s professional judgement adapts to each child and each group.

Why research protects children

From fads

The belief that every child learns best when teaching matches their “learning style” — visual, auditory or kinaesthetic — is widespread among teachers internationally (Dekker et al., 2012). In Greece too, research with prospective teachers found that neuromyths were common, and that the best protection against them was scientific knowledge about the brain (Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2017). Yet an extensive review found no adequate evidence that matching instruction to “learning styles” improves learning (Pashler et al., 2008). Likewise, the famous “Mozart effect” did not hold up when the data were pooled (Pietschnig et al., 2010), and a comprehensive review of commercial “brain-training” programmes found little evidence that gains transfer to everyday cognitive functioning (Simons et al., 2016). In 2016, one of the best-known such companies agreed to pay 2 million dollars to the US Federal Trade Commission over advertising claims that were not substantiated (Federal Trade Commission, 2016).

From the cost of lost opportunity

The differences between approaches are not theoretical; they are measured in months of learning. Cultivating metacognition and self-regulation, for example, is associated with around seven months of additional progress over a school year (Quigley et al., 2018). When we choose well, we give a child time. When we choose badly, we take it away — without even noticing.

It sees further than any individual experience

Cohort studies allow us to see what at age 7 predicts life at 42 (Ritchie & Bates, 2013), or how self-control in childhood predicts health and financial circumstances at 32 (Moffitt et al., 2011). No individual experience — however rich — can see that far. Research is the only way to know what is good for a child’s future without putting it at risk.

Four myths about research

“Research has nothing to do with real classrooms”

Many of the most important studies take place in real classrooms, with real teachers: retrieval-practice programmes in middle and high schools (Agarwal et al., 2014), kindergarten curricula evaluated in randomised trials (Blair & Raver, 2014). The gap lies not in research’s relevance to the classroom, but in its translation into lesson design.

“Anything research-based is boring”

Some of children’s best-loved learning experiences were born from research. Sesame Street was designed from day one, in 1969, in close collaboration with researchers and was continually tested with children (Fisch & Truglio, 2001); children who had access to it in its early years went on to do better at school (Kearney & Levine, 2019). The Scratch programming language, with which millions of children around the world create stories and games, was developed by a research group at the MIT Media Lab (Resnick et al., 2009). LEGO’s Mindstorms robotics line took its name from Seymour Papert’s book on learning through making (Papert, 1980). And research on guided play shows it can be more effective than direct instruction for certain learning and cognitive skills (Skene et al., 2022).

“Research kills creativity”

Research on creativity itself shows that it can be cultivated through well-designed training (Scott et al., 2004). Structure is not the enemy of creativity; it is often its precondition. Creativity is not the opposite of design — it is its result, when the design is right.

“Research is theory; teachers need practice”

The psychologist Kurt Lewin observed that there is nothing so practical as a good theory (Lewin, 1951). The cognitive science of learning bears this out: some of its most powerful tools are simple to apply — five minutes of retrieval at the start of a lesson, revision spread out over time instead of last-minute cramming (Dunlosky et al., 2013).

Research is not the opposite of creativity. It is the reason creativity in the classroom has an effect.

The gap between research and practice is real

In medicine, it has been estimated that it takes on average around 17 years for a research finding to reach routine practice (Morris et al., 2011). In education, the evidence points to similar gaps. Core learning strategies are rarely covered in the textbooks used in teacher preparation (Pomerance et al., 2016); neuromyths persist (Dekker et al., 2012; Papadatou-Pastou et al., 2017); explicit instruction in self-regulation strategies is rare in classrooms (Dignath & Veenman, 2021); and teachers recognise the importance of skills such as executive functions, but mainly through experience rather than training (Gilmore & Cragg, 2014).

The causes are well known: research is published in journals, and in a language, not addressed to teachers; it is rarely translated into concrete lesson design; teachers have little time and support; and education systems are rarely organised to make use of new evidence (Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2003). Bridging the gap requires people and organisations fluent in both languages: that of research and that of the classroom.

What this means for a child

• Time well spent: every hour of learning is devoted to what has been shown to work.
• Development that lasts: knowledge and capacities that stay with them beyond the next exam.
• Learning that engages: because it is built on how children actually learn and what motivates them.
• Confidence for the family: not promises, but evidence.

How to recognise a research-based approach

• It can answer “How do we know?” by referring to research — not only to experience or testimonials.
• It talks about both knowledge and development — not only grades, and not only “skills”.
• It monitors progress in ways that help the child, not in ways that rank them.
• It avoids miracle claims and “guaranteed success”.
• It is honest about the limits of what we know.

The CogniPraxis approach

The CogniPraxis Framework is built on research from cognitive psychology, developmental science and the science of education. Our originality does not lie in “discovering” new science; it lies in the coherent integration of what we already know and in applying it, consistently, in every lesson. That is the bridge we are working to build.